Ad Widget

Collapse

Question about fat

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question about fat

    Hello!

    I've been hearing different things about this from everyone...gotta clear this up once and for all:

    Is 60-70% of my diet being fat optimal if my goal is fat loss?

    The remaining: 20-30% protein and 10% carbs (leafy greens, nuts, milk)

    Question: Is 50% fat in favor of more leafy greens and other veggies and more meat better?

    Again, goal is fat loss. I know fat is the most satiating but it seems like eating butter by the spoonful and guzzling cream is understood by many to not be very conducive to fat loss because they are very caloricly dense?

    Would heaps of more veggies (especially leafy greens) result in greater fat loss because of the filling fiber and overall low caloric content (opposite of dense lard and cheese)?

    All the veggies are organic and local, all the meat is grass-fed/pastured, as is the dairy. Its all in line with the PB. It just seems like there is differing opinions regarding amount of fat. I've read everything on the forum about fat and all the articles and posts about fat (other websites as well)...

    Hopefully someone can clear this up:

    Butter by the spoonful good or bad for fat loss? Does 60-70% of diet being fat result in more fat loss than 50% of diet being fat? Instead of 70% fat, would 50% be better? Increase in leafy greens and decrease in fat?

    I already eat a good amount of leafy greens and protein (used to eat 4X as much leafy greens as i eat now--with primal having me eating lots of fat now) but want the OPTIMAL amount for maximum fat loss. How much of my diet should be fat? 70% fat? 50% fat? 80% fat?

    Thank you all in advance for your help! I really appreciate it!

  • #2
    Originally posted by BenMercer1993 View Post
    ...

    How much of my diet should be fat? 70% fat? 50% fat? 80% fat?
    What you're comfortable with? If something upsets your stomach, for example, don't do that.


    But you aksed a lot more than that. I think you probably had no answer so far, because those are frequently asked questions, and everyone's seen posts along those lines many times before.

    In brief - I'll sketch in a few thoughts.

    I don't think "calorically dense" is a meaningful concept at all.

    Macronutrient ratios are hotly debated, but that's only part of the picture - micronutrient intake is at least, if not more, important.

    I don't think anyone needs to number-crunch everything, although sometimes looking at what one's intake is can be interesting.

    People when food isn't short usually eat something like 10 to 15% of their "calories" as protein. It will range up to 20% sometimes, and that probably fine. But 30% plus is a notional figure arrived at by Professor Cordain, not how real people have ever been found eating, and probably not a good idea.

    Yes, reducing carbohydrates is best for weight-loss. That's been shown again and again. Some people don't like it that that's true, wish that it weren't, and the more eccentric and ill-informed even claim that it isn't. But that's too bad, because that's how things are. The current line in the mainstream is that it's good for weight-loss but might be dangerous "in the long run" - for rather vague and unsupported reasons.

    I shan't offer you any figures. I would suggest reading a good book. The obvious one is Mark Sisson's own book. You might also consider this one, which has quite a lot on the scientific background:

    The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable: Stephen D. Phinney, Jeff S. Volek: 9780983490708: Amazon.com: Books



    EDIT:

    I will add, Ben, that this article is worth reading and may amuse you, too - there's quite a bit of a rather dry humour in there:

    http://www.westonaprice.org/health-t...nutrient-land/

    I think just following the story along and looking at all the history and all those different diets one gets an interesting perspective on it.

    There's one point that's made there that I think is very true:

    The notion that all of us should consume lowfat diets with the same ratios of macronutrients comes from wonderland. If you suffer from hypoglycemia or diabetes, or are prone to seizures, you will need more fat in your diet to keep blood sugar levels stable. If you want to lose weight, you will need to cut back on total calories. This will be easier to do if you eliminate a large portion of the carbohydrates and keep the fat percentage relatively high. If you are an athlete, farmer or laborer burning up large amounts of energy, you can eat more carbohydrates than the rest of us without gaining weight.
    No "one size fits all". And this is where the USDA dogma is so wrong-headed. Why are they telling office workers, diabetics, and Olympic athletes to eat in same way?

    Also, notice while you read through the article that fat and carbohydrate are kind of on a see-saw. If someone's protein intake stays at a sensible and safe level, then they have to find something like 80 to 90% of their calorific intake elsewhere. They HAVE to eat either quite a bit of fat or quite a few carbs - or both - or go hungry. That's just how the maths works out and has to.
    Last edited by Vainamoinen; 03-12-2015, 04:42 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ok thank you for your insight. I have read the Primal Blueprint among many other things.
      Unfortunately, I am looking for a figure. I thought there was a positively superior way to lose fat and that its all about a very high fat diet?
      I feel and perform great on 10-20% fat (mostly leafy greens and protein) and also on 80-90% fat....
      I'm trying to find the OPTIMAL choice for fat loss. I follow the PB but there seems to be slight discrepancy between many over the issue of the amount of fat in a diet.
      I know there isn't a formula that works for everyone...but I strongly believe there IS a magic formula if fat loss is the goal. I think there is some kind of perfect ratio....that's what I'm looking for. Is it 75%? 25%?
      This is of course excluding other factors that can make the results more complicated. Fat loss is the goal.
      One has to be better than the other. There has to be one choice that works better than the other.
      One way, either, 10%, 50%, or 90% (or something in between) must be the ideal.
      Yes, I understand that more active people need more carbs and some people cannot thrive on high fat due to stomach upset or other issues but this is assuming a standard, average--for control purposes.
      I want to find out if, overall (all things being equal) a very high fat diet (75%?) is more successful in reducing fat than 25% or some other number.
      I realize it is not an exact science and there are other factors that may differ the number but I know that there is an approximate estimation of this ideal figure and I am trying to find that out. 75%? 50%? 25%?
      Thank you all very much once again for all of your great assistance! I really appreciate your help!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BenMercer1993 View Post
        Ok thank you for your insight. I have read the Primal Blueprint among many other things.
        Good for you!

        Unfortunately, I am looking for a figure. I thought there was a positively superior way to lose fat and that its all about a very high fat diet?
        Controlling carbohydrate intake - not necessarily minimising it - seems best. There's a fair bit of evidence to suggest that. And that was what everyone accepted until the low-fat hysteria really got in swing.

        Very high fat? Maybe yes, maybe no. The corollary is very low carb. You'll recall I said fat/carbs are on a see-saw? But not everyone seems to need very low carb to lose. Maybe some do.


        I feel and perform great on 10-20% fat (mostly leafy greens and protein) and also on 80-90% fat....
        I'm trying to find the OPTIMAL choice for fat loss. I follow the PB but there seems to be slight discrepancy between many over the issue of the amount of fat in a diet.
        I know there isn't a formula that works for everyone...but I strongly believe there IS a magic formula if fat loss is the goal. I think tere is some kind of perfect ratio....that's what I'm looking for.
        Some think so. Jan Kwasniewksi, who was a Polish army doctor, seems to have thought it was all about macronutrient ratios:

        Homo Diet Healthy Way of Eating

        The "Perfect Health Diet" - which is kind of popular in quasi-paleo circles but which was devised by someone with no medical qualifications at all - bangs the macro nutrient drum again but to a different rhythm. And with some dubious justifications and fairly wild and unsubstantiated claims.

        If you "feel and perform great" on ... on whatever that is … then why stress about it? Do that.


        Is it 75%? 25%?

        It's 56.9987

        I'm joking, of course.


        [I][U]I want to find out if, overall (all things being equal) a very high fat diet (75%?) is more successful in reducing fat than 25% or some other number.
        As I said, carbohydrate restriction does seem to be effective for fat-loss, and there's actually a long history behind that. Does that mean high fat … well, yeah, because you've got to eat something.

        Would I personally suggest a figure to anyone? No.

        Comment

        Working...
        X